// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

• Home
• About
• Contact
• Search
• Cycle Journey Planner
• Shops
• Stuff
• Resources
• CCE Glossary

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".

IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters


It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.

RULES No personal insults. No swearing.

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

31. crowriver
    Member

    Resurrecting this old thread as it seemed the most appropriate place for an anecdote.

    Took my seven year old daughter to a kid's birthday party on the tagalong yesterday. We had great fun climbing steep hills then whizzing down the other side (Willowbrae environs great for climbing and descending training).

    After an enjoyable party, we were some of the last to leave. As we got ready, the mother of the birthday girl came out to send us off. I was helping my daughter on with her helmet, then proceeded to climb aboard myself, lidless.

    Birthday mother: "You're not wearing a helmet?" (Shocked)
    Me: "No"
    Birthday mother: "Why not?" (Disapproving stare)
    Me: "I don't need one."
    Birthday mother: (Very judgmental expression)
    Me: "I've been cycling since I was 13 years old. When I was young, nobody wore a helmet. The fashion for helmets started sometime in the nineties: I only regularly wore a helmet from the late nineties to the mid-zeroes. I'll be 50 next year. I'm still here..."
    Birthday mother: "Hmmm..." (Incredulous look)

    We departed on the deserted residential street, and safely made our way home.

    Yet another encounter with someone (this time a friend) who does not cycle, and thinks I ought to be wearing a helmet. I couldn't be bothered rehearsing all the arguments about drivers not wearing helmets, neck injuries caused by helmets, etc. My own obvious lack of serious head injuries seemed argument enough...

    (Though for the avoidance of doubt, if I am cycling "fast" for long distances e.g.. an audax, I do wear a helmet. Again this was too nuanced to bother with during the conversation above).

    Posted 8 years ago #

32. chdot
    Admin

    Kids and helmets is a whole other issue.

    To a large extent it depends on the individual kid and where they are cycling.

    With a tagalong I would expect child to use a helmet, and probably on own bike on road below teenage.

    My 3 1/2 year old grandson tends not to on his own bike - pavement and paths, but has to for the (mild) local skatepark.

    This week he was on a tandem for the first time with helmet.

    He didn't fall off.

    Probably safer than in a kids seat where he doesn't often have a helmet.

    Posted 8 years ago #

33. SRD
    Moderator

    @crowriver I just say 'you know there's no medical evidence at all that helmets work'?

    shuts them up.

    Posted 8 years ago #

34. sallyhinch
    Member

    If somebody genuinely asks me, I will explain about risk compensation and the fact that I haven't fallen off my bike as an adult in almost 30 years of cycling. If they're just telling me off, I tell them I am wearing a magical Harris Tweed hat which protects me against everything.

    Posted 8 years ago #

35. crowriver
    Member

    @chdot, my child was wearing a helmet. I've told both of them that, until they're 18 years old they need to wear one. After that, if they're still cycling, it's up to them: they'll be adults and can make their own decisions.

    Nevertheless, my daughter sometimes refuses a helmet, when on her own bike, on the pavement. Which is okay. But on the tagalong, or if she will be on the road at any point, I always insist on a helmet. On the tagalong she's not making her own speed nor braking decisions so a helmet is a sensible precaution. Having said that, she's never fallen off the tagalong in three years so far...

    Posted 8 years ago #

36. chdot
    Admin

    "I've told both of them that, until they're 18 years old they need to wear one"

    Mmm

    Posted 8 years ago #

37. crowriver
    Member

    In reality, I suspect they'll not be wearing them (unless they want to) by the time they're in their mid-teens.....IF they're still cycling regularly by then (no guarantee of that)

    Posted 8 years ago #

38. gembo
    Member

    I had a tweed bunnet on the other day when I was cycling the brompton into edinburgh. Also tweed jacket. THat is why jdanielp described me as using a time machine.

    When I get told various drivers spotted me the other day without a helmet on (eg if going to shops or bringing bike back from matt in juni green) I just say That's right.

    I am so not interested in talking about helmets. If someone is really keen I steert he subject straight to segregated infrastructure. Helmets are a diversion from the infrastructure aim.

    Posted 8 years ago #

39. ih
    Member

    On a short walk yesterday I found myself paying attention to kids' headgear, probably due to the 'helmet - negligence' discussion on the other thread.

    I was surprised to see practically all children wearing some kind of helmet, although I guess hardly any of the lids would pass current quality criteria. Even those on the little 3 wheeled scooters had helmets and all of them, bikes, trikes, scooters, were just bimbling along at a slow walking pace with their adult alongside. At the same time kids were playing in the swing park (supervised by adults) completely unprotected, doing stuff much riskier than cycling.

    The miscalculation of risk has very serious effects. It tells the children that everyday biking and scooting is dangerous and they must wear special clothes for the activity. It also gives the false impression that these bits of plastic provide protection, and that you are being irresponsible if you don't go along with this myth. Cycling isn't dangerous statistically, and helmets are just another barrier that will either contribute to putting people off cycling or persuade them to stop cycling as soon as they have other modes of transport available to them.

    I don't have kids, so I can't say with certainty how I would react if I had, but I like to think that I would do everything to discourage them from wearing helmets for everyday cycling.

    Posted 8 years ago #

40. neddie
    Member

    I've been asked "that" question 4 times in the last week. If someone asks me again, my response will be, "It's none of your bl***y business whether I wear a helmet or not."

    Posted 8 years ago #

41. Rob
    Member

    "I do like wearing my helmet and I do genuinely feel safer in my hideous bright pink coat of doom"

    The tricky part is to not allow that safe feeling to translate into behaviour which increases the risk again (especially if the safe feeling is a mirage).

    Shortly after I stopped wearing a helmet for commuting I found myself thinking "I should slow down here (Seafield Road) incase I slide off sideways (it was a bit damp) into the road and under these lorries".

    I'm not quite sure how I thought the addition of a helmet would've made any difference to that imagined scenario.

    Posted 8 years ago #

42. wee folding bike
    Member

    I don't, the kids don't.

    Lowe Alpine earflap time again.

    I did find one while clearing out the garage prior to converting it into the Christophe Willibald von Gluck Conservatoire*. It's a purple 1993 model Giro Hammerhead. If I ever enter the Brompton World Championships I'll take it with me as it would save buying another one.

    Very few people ask me about it. Perhaps the current clown terror and my clown like bike deters them.

    The quack asked the memsahib about 7 years ago, I go past his house every day, and he was happy with her answer. Kids in school sometimes comment on my pirate head gear and one spotted me in Tesco wearing a boiler suit at the weekend.

    *Large (5x3m) bike, outdoor kit and freezer storage chalet has been built in the back garden. Converting the garage means that the piano, harmonica, melodica, ukulele and recorder playing will no longer be in the room directly below the management's bed.

    Posted 8 years ago #

43. Hopey
    Member

    I never leave the house without my helmet, even if I'm just popping to the shops. I've a big head so I look daft, but don't mind that.

    Interesting discussion, wasn't aware so many here don't often wear them.

    Posted 8 years ago #

44. fimm
    Member

    Hopey, if you really want the helmet debate, it has its own thread here:
    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10427

    Posted 8 years ago #

45. chdot
    Admin

    "if you really want the helmet debate"

    There's an earlier thread that got *a bit* heated.

    CCE bottom line is "personal choice".

    There are people who always wear them and others who never do.

    There are people who choose to wear them when they consider that there is a greater risk of a fall - e.g. off-road, fast rides/racing (usually compulsory) and - for some - commuting.

    Posted 8 years ago #

46. Arellcat
    Moderator

    I've been asked "that" question 4 times in the last week.

    I was stopped halfway home yesterday to peel off a layer, and someone asked me that question.

    I pointed out that I was riding a bright red bobsleigh with three wheels and four lights, and he sheepishly admitted that I was hard to miss.

    Posted 8 years ago #

47. Tulyar
    Member

    I've taken to looking closely at London's high % of helmet wearers(sic) perhaps 50% are *NOT* wearing helmets. They have a helmet like object sitting on their head with an integral garrotte (if it is actually done up). Women seem to be more likely to have the straps properly done up and adjusted.

    On at least 2 occasions I've seen helmets which are clearly worn back to front...

    Has anyone else watched this?

    By far the greater need us for cyclists to actually know what s happening behind them from PACTS I learned that 98% of fatal HGV crashes arose from the front zone (corner/front) of the HGV striking the rear of the bike. NB this effectively blows away the massive emphasis on telling people not to undertake a truck on a bike, and makes a far better campaign 'The Lifesaver Look' the ability to look behind over your shoulder.

    In an open, honest survey of around 5000 cyclists it emerged that a disportionate percentage of female respondents reported a problem with this, and crash/incident analysis provided a corroborating detail that women were more likely to be involved in an incident (ie moving on a path of convergence with a following vehicle) where poor rearward observation was a factor (cyclist moves right or following vehicle moves left) - its on page 16-17.

    Perhaps a straw poll of the forum who can confidently say they are fully aware of vehicles approaching from behind?

    Ultimate safety accessory - rear view mirror?

    Posted 8 years ago #

48. gembo
    Member

    Good to make regular shoulder checks for sure. Never tried the mirror on the bar end, I can see how this would be useful.. Especially if not comfy with shoulder checking

    Posted 8 years ago #

49. PS
    Member

    a disportionate percentage of female respondents reported a problem with this

    Any indication in what sense they have a problem?

    I do a lot of shoulder checks when cycling, but I think my hearing is my main means of identifying that there's a vehicle behind me.

    Round town I tend to be helmet-free. Out of town - "on a bike ride" - I will wear a helmet mainly because that's what I do. I'll rationalise that to say it's because it's likely to be a faster ride, but probably also habit and the fact that it's not an inconvenience.

    Posted 8 years ago #

50. Greenroofer
    Member

    I have a bar-end mirror on the commuter bike. It doesn't replace a life-saver look, but it's great for general awareness of what's going on behind, particularly for things like deciding whether to start negotiating my way across multiples lanes of traffic. Also good because, as a glasses-wearer, I have to turn my head like an owl if I want an in-focus view of what's happening directly behind me.

    Posted 8 years ago #

51. crowriver
    Member

    I found bar-end mirrors very handy when carrying one of my bairns in a child seat, as it was not always possible or safe to shoulder check. They'd maybe be handy on the tandem for similar reasons. Otherwise, don't really see a use for them: shoulder check easy enough when riding solo.

    Posted 8 years ago #

52. Tulyar
    Member

    Ian Walker left us hanging with that conundrum after the OxCam report (2005?), but the fact that almost every HGV-cycle fatality in London is a (generally young) woman seems to fit that result.

    I do have a possible factor - many women are riding bikes built and sized for men, and as such the frames and handlebar reach are designed for body proportions where the arms-torso ratio is for longer arms relative to torso than the typical female ratio. There is also the basic ratio that a classic female body has hips and shoulders around the same width, but the male body has hips and rib cage the same width and wider shoulders. This is, I observe, changing, and (forgive me if it looks like I'm staring) I'm noticing women with wider shoulder development. It often transpires that they are sports swimmers or triathletes, although I sense a trend.

    Many women sort out the shoulder pains and other issues of riding a bike built for a man by fitting handlebars with a shorter reach, and putting the saddle further forward.

    If however you are riding a bike which as your arms at full stretch, rather than slightly bent, any turn of the head, which naturally delivers a slight turn of the shoulders, will cause the handlebars to move (because the arms are straight)

    Alternatively it has to be the Lot's Wife syndrome... long held fear for consequences of looking back

    Posted 8 years ago #

53. Tulyar
    Member

    This but back on topic - Tony Raven posted around 10 years ago the details of a late 1940's study on the strength of the cranium, and worked out the forces of a 20mph flat impact on a skull and a polystyrene helmet. The skull was at 30% of its capacity to resist catastrophic failure. The helmet was at 260% of its capacity before total destruction.

    This actually makes a lot of sense as at 20mph (fast running speed) our ancestors might be running into trees, falling over etc, and those with a body which could not survive such an impact were conveniently removed from the gene pool.

    The nature of cycle crashes where the head is the first point of impact will have 2 factors not covered by the 'helmet' testing process. 1) the impact will have an element of movement at a tangent to the helmet surface. 2) there will be a twisting force on the neck with around 90% of body weight applying the forces, inverting the normal position of the neck normally having to manage the force of the head (10% of body weight) moving.

    The head is a really neat place for the brain. It is covered with a self-repairing layer of material which absorbs light shocks, and shears if there is a severe tangential force, preventing damage though rotation of the brain inside the cranium and severe forces damaging spinal vertebra C1-C5 and associated cerebral cortex. Break C1 and you are pretty much dead C2 - paralysed. The 'fused plate' structure can give the skull an ability to soak up forces by bending and springing back.

    However there is a natural reaction when the threat of injury arises to go into foetal position, which very neatly puts the head in the centre of a protective shield, especially if the arms are locked over neck. If the body can be appropriately aligned the legs should be set towards the impact and the most powerful muscle in the body can be used as a shock absorber. A bulky helmet can inhibit this, however the traditional bunch of bananas has a lot to recommend it as the construction mimics the scalp and it will compress and shear in a moving impact. Foetal bodies also roll pretty well, again limiting potential for more serious injury.

    Helmets may also enhance injuries in a face-plant as the peak of a helmet can for a pivot point which forces the nose and chin into the road surface. ABS peaks can also shatter (no test for this?), and I've had a report from a couple of narrowly avoiding the loss of an eye as the shattered peak of a helmet became embedded in the riders face.

    Having experienced at least 2 crashes where not wearing a helmet saved my life I'm riding with that brain protection that has 2.3bn years of testing and proving behind it

    Posted 8 years ago #

54. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Seems to me that that cyclist safety is 2 unrelated topics, to put simply:
    What is the chances of / how do we stop stuff happening.
    And, what happens when stuff happens.

    (All this should probably be on other page, but thread drift...)

    Now, regarding when stuff happens... All of the latest, non partisan, not funded by the helmet industry medical evildenve points to helmets being effective in preventing serious or fatal injuries, and that there is no real evidence of rotational injury. I'll not go into that in too much detail here, links / comments to that etc on other thread.

    I will use an analogy here though, the 'whether a helmet is effective' as an object has been proven, it's all a little bit like climate change, there are a small minority who for whatever reason refuse to beleive the overwhelming evidence when presented with it. We're happy to beleive them re car injuries though...

    The other unrelated 'preventing stuff happening' is a separate conversation around segregated infrastructure, which that evidence for some reason people beleive more easily. Now, even when that infrastructure is in place, 'stuff still happens'. You only need to look at the NL stats to see Dutch drivers kill as many cyclists as Brritish drivers. Regardless of what measures you put in, you can't stop stuff happening...

    Posted 8 years ago #

55. gembo
    Member

    I wear a helmet when commuting on road, except when riding a Brompton. If off road path or going to shops I don't. I have fallen off when icy twice. Once the helmet stopped a very nasty bruise from appearing as I skelped the kerb with my bonce the other time I landed on my hip and slid down the road, helmet not a factor. I thinks the tragic fatalities tulyar mentions would have happened if the people were wearing helmets or if they were not wearing helmets. I am not up to speed on Dutch data. Is it percentage of population that is the same or overall total as obviously many more cyclists in nederlands? Anyway all of this gone through many times on helmet thread.

    Posted 8 years ago #

56. Arellcat
    Moderator

    You only need to look at the NL stats to see Dutch drivers kill as many cyclists as British drivers. Regardless of what measures you put in, you can't stop stuff happening...

    I haven't seeon those stats, so sorry to nitpick, but by what measure do Dutch drivers kill cyclists compared with British cyclists? Absolute terms (thus, is population controlled for?), or relative terms (are we talking about a rate, such as cyclists per million km driven or cycled?)? And under what conditions? I don't imagine many Dutch drivers are killing cyclists on cycle paths, but perhgaps more in the city centre where segregated routes might be less common.

    And, as to whether or not you can stop stuff happening, you can't stop it happening ultimately, but you can go a long way to actively disarming the factors that in combination would otherwise cause it, and that is relevant whether or not you wear protective equipment.

    A helmet will help IF you are in a situation in which your landing is such that a helmet might help, and IF that landing is not compromised by subsequent events, such as being run over.

    Posted 8 years ago #

57. Roibeard
    Member

    Going back to the lifesaver look, I can see how that prevents the cyclist changing lane into a following driver's path, but I'm not so clear as to how it can prevent a following driver changing lane into a cyclist.

    There perhaps is some argument that the "facial recognition" pathways fire in the driver's brain, catching their attention, but what is the cyclist to do?

    Prepare themselves for impact? Veer to one side (risking loss of control)? Throw themselves off the bike? Most of the time such drastic measures won't be required, and knowing from a mirror/brief look which close pass will require this and which won't isn't easy.

    My lifesaver look is used to actively put myself further out into the path of the approaching driver, so that they can't simply skim past thoughtlessly at their current speed, and will have to acknowledge my presence and slow down or change direction (or...). But this is also a risky strategy and beyond many people's personal risk acceptance level.

    If I hear a fast approach before I've had a chance to look, I simply try and hold a straight line and pray...

    I fully endorse vehicular cycling as the best option we currently have, but it is a fundamentally sick and perverse idea.

    Robert

    Posted 8 years ago #

58. Roibeard
    Member

    There is one problem with the lifesaver + primary approach.

    Drivers definitely know you've seen them and chosen to deliberately impede them, which can result in aggression.

    So there is something in the Lot's Wife syndrome - if they don't know that you've seen them, they may have to take more care, and can't assume you're being belligerent.

    Which is true, in every case you're just trying to stay safe rather than trying to spill their pint.

    Robert

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

RSS Feeds

• posts
• topics

Links


New site for people thinking of cycling to work

• 
• Pedal on Parliament
• cyclingedinburgh (archived)
• Spokes (Lothian Cycle Campaign)
• Cycling-Edinburgh - details of local rides
• CTC Lothians - events and useful info
• University of Edinburgh's cycling pages - Lots of useful info for staff and students
• Heriot-Watt Cycling Club
• Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
• Laid Back Bikes
• Edinburgh Falcons
• Edinburgh RC
• The Bike Station
• Cycling Scotland
• Sustrans Scotland
• Copenhagenize.com - a vision of what Edinburgh could be like (perhaps)
• Sheldon Brown - almost everything you need to know about Bicycles

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum is proudly powered by bbPress - bbPress Theme designed by RFDN